The onus of proof is not on the person saying that something does NOT exist, but on those who claim that it does. I presume you don't believe in Zeus or Apollo. Anyone who claims that the world is flat, or that Zeus is god, is required to prove it with evidence and facts. In science we use something called the Null Hypothesis. This is a high school level concept that few people ever learn.

There is simply no evidence for a god, and because it is quite honestly a silly, childish fairytale concept, it requires a solid amount of evidence. Extraordinary claims and all that...

There are an infinite number of possible things that may exist but which we cannot prove do not exist, the WMD in Iraq for example. But as we have seen, that kind of logic is wrong and often dangerous.

We cannot prove that purple aliens from Mars are not real. But we hardly spend our lives assuming that they are, and we certainly would demand evidence. We insist on being skeptical almost all of the time, yet some of us seem to be fine with answering the biggest questions of all (the origin of the universe, of life, and our fate after death) on faith. This is the most perfect and complete ignorance I have ever encountered. And to add to it, most religions are used as an excuse to commit violence on others.

That it is very popular, does nothing to indicate religion has any truth to it at all. However, that does make it particularly dangerous and oppressive.

And do you really want to keep slinging around words like "childish"? You're in over your head, R2K.

Let's start with the burden of proof. I agree that if I assert a particular form of God that I have some explaining to do, and I am willing.

However, note that by asserting that there is no god whatsoever, you are rejecting an infinite number of finitely possible gods, which is illogical on the face of it. Both atheists and theists face a burden of proof. Agnostics are the ones that are off the hook.

As for your notion that there is no evidence for God, you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word. There may be no scientific evidence for God (though some may dispute even that statement). But there is certainly evidence in the sense that is accepted everyday in courtrooms around the country. So don't trot out that lame foal and expect to be taken seriously.

Religions are sometimes used to commit violence on others, but Jesus was notable for insisting that we love our enemies. The wars justified in the name of Christianity have killed far fewer people than the wars fought for secular reasons, by many orders of magnitude.

Sorry but the bible and every other religious myth I have come across are childish at best, and horrifying at worst (some parts of the bible where people are stoned, tortured, killed for being born in Egypt, etc.) They are as dumb as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. They are ridiculous as any claim made by the church of Scientology or the scriptures of the Mormon church.

I do not assert that there is no god, just that there is no reason to think there is a god. I do fully expect there not to be a god, because the idea is stupid and there is no evidence. However, being often wrong, I am open to any evidence you may bring forward. Do you assert that Zeus is not god? Do you assert that there are no pink aliens from mars living among us? I certainly do, but await further evidence from those who claim that he is, or that there are.

Scientific evidence, facts, points of quantifiable data, are the only forms of evidence. Courtrooms accept what evidence for god now? I think not.

Or are you doing a miracle on 34th st move and saying "if the US post office recognizes Santa Claus, he must be real!" ? That was a great film, radio show, but it is hardly how logic works.

People take the fate of their soul on faith, yet I bet the same people would be highly skeptical if a person walked up to them and asked to "borrow" $100. Only by forcing children to believe these things before their logic is fully honed, can these kinds of myths be kept alive.

Also, for the record, testimony is one of the weakest sources of information. Which is why scientists have little time for it. Even wikipedia wont accept statements without documentation. Yet the workings of the Universe and the fate of your soul are left to "my preacher told me so!"

Presuming you are a christian (and if not, let me ask this question to the millions who are), why don't you believe in the 1000+ other religions on earth? And what are they lacking that your belief has? Because I find them all essentially identical, thus the atheism stance!

I believe in God because I have talked to Him. I can testify if you like, but the details are not something I really want to discuss online.

Science depends on repeatable experiments, so that testimony is only as important as it is descriptive of a method to reproduce results. The data is the key.

But that is just science. You sound like the guy with a hammer that thinks every problem is a nail. In history, law, politics, management/organization, testimony is important and sometimes it is the only evidence. You dismiss it because you want to, but that just betrays a shallow understanding of the way the world works and what constitutes evidence. We all see through a glass darkly, and just because science has illuminated and polished our understanding of some matters, that is a small subset of what is. You're myopic.

Saying that all 1000+ religions are identical is analogous to saying that all black people look a like. It doesn't say much about black people, but says more about how shallow your thoughts are.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally throughout. It was written by primitive people attempting to grapple with a tough subject, and there are parts that are transparently designed to be used for political control and coercion. It is riddled with contradictions and subject to vague and haphazard interpretations. A vocal and incipid minority of Christians insist on a literal interpretation and a tiny minority of them can read Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew.

The majority of Christians do not believe that the Bible should be taken literally, but rather that it contains transcendent truths and wisdom. I agree with that, but I would go further and say that the Bible is simply good enough to accomplish God's plan, in spite of it's many flaws.

The majority of Christians and certainly the vocal idiot minority would not claim me as a Christian brother, because I question the trinity. However, I consider myself a Christian because I believe that Jesus was an human incarnation of the Omega, sent to move us through this difficult era in our development.

I guess you could say that I am a believer that is troubled by religion.